Countries the UK Declared War On

Vice versa -- the US declared war on the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_the_United_Kingdom

The source does say it's incomplete.

What about China in the two Opium Wars? As a Chinese I can never forget this painful history.

Yes.

No. The United States declared independence and was a real sovereign country. However the British Empire did not recognize that independence so there was no country for them to declare war on. From their perspective they were putting down a rebellion in their own colony.

How do you determine the USA was a sovereign country at that point?

It had its own centralized internally undisputed government free from foreign influence, control over its contiguous territory and borders, and international recognition. What else would it be?

The only thing the US had at that point was some international recognition. How can you possibly be free from foreign influence and have control over your borders if you are in the middle of fighting and Empire that claims and asserts militarily that you are a colony?

I read a comment of yours not long ago saying that the only countries that recognise Palestine are countries that hate Jews or hate America. The only countries that recognised the US at that point were ones that were enemies of the British Empire.

The USA wasn't truly independent until the Treaty of Paris when Britain recognised them as such and borders were properly agreed. Up until then, you were merely a rebellious colony.

The centralized internally undisputed government was free from foreign influence. The king and parliament had no say in the goings on at the Continental Congress. And the government of the United States exerted full control over almost the entirety of the country, minus one or two cities under British occupation. Battles were fought here and there, but the British only controlled small parcels of land on the continent. This is not complicated.

It's true international recognition has a lot to do with politics. Of course it does. That's why it's the least important of these three factors. But it's still a factor. And the US checked off every one of these factors by 1777. "Palestine" checks off only the last one. It is not sovereign. Are you trying to argue that "Palestine" is currently a sovereign state and the United States before 1783 was not? Or are you saying both are not? The former argument would be pretty absurdist, albeit pretty typical.

and btw the first country to recognize American sovereignty was Morocco, and this had nothing at all to do with spite toward the British or racial animus toward English people. You're just pulling arguments out of thin air.

Do you believe that China is not sovereign because the Maoist/Communist government has still not been recognized by the government in Taipei?

Nomad: undisputed in this sense means that there were no other serious contenders or rivals claiming authority within the country that exerted any actual control. For example, and by contrast, it's often said that "Palestine" includes the territories of The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but when other countries say they recognize Palestinian statehood, they also usually are recognizing the PNA/Fatah as the government of that state. However the PNA only controls pockets of the West Bank while much (most?) of it is still under direct Israeli control. Meanwhile Gaza is under the control of Hamas. To have had an analogous situation in the United States in the 1770s you'd have to have seen a situation where the Continental Congress controlled maybe parts of 4 or 5 states (but not Philadelphia, where they claimed their capital was), some other rival American group who also claimed sovereignty controlled most of Vermont and Massachusetts, and the British still controlled everything else.

It looks like "declaring" war has gone out of fashion since 1942, then. The UK has been a willing belligerent in many wars since then - and not just the Falklands. Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Korea, Malaya, the Mau Mau uprisings in Kenya, Cyprus, Suez etc etc

So there are rules? Just showing up with naval vessels, aircraft, and an invasion force doesn't count?

Uk not in Vietnam War: .......... Countries involved in VIETNAM WAR:= United States, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Khmer Republic (later overthrown by Khmer Rouge), Kingdom of Laos and Republic of China (Taiwan).

I was also thinking the Qing dynasty in the Opium Wars. But those actually weren't really wars now that I did some more research.

Wow, talk about the real "technicality" getting in the way lol.

Given the above, it's an interesting point that England (later UK) and Portugal have had an alliance since the late 14th century and have never opposed each other in a war since

I mean I think that San Marino is pretty blameless in terms of war, or maybe Antigua and Barbuda

how come?

Oh wait I'm an idiot, because the Soviet Union would have fallen likely and Germany would have won.

Ooh, even for Jetpunk that's nit-picking of a high order, as the official name was changed back to Siam in 1946, and in the interim virtually everyone in English-speaking countries continued to call it "Siam".

May we have "Siam" as a type-in please?

actually in most cases they do since most countries that do declear wars have some form of government which needs to give permission, so even if it is a bald face lie they usually give one.

The ukraine invasion for example is acording to putin a policng action to put down a facist government that is abusing its own people, its bull but that is the reason for it.

By no stretch of the imagine was America under Trump worst than imperialist Britain, which looted, oppressed, and starved millions of people across globe. But even then, imperialist Britain was better than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR or Khan's Mongolia. In comparison, what crimes against humanity did Trump commit?

I don't want this post to be read as me hating Britain or defending Trump--on the contrary, I'd consider myself an Anglophile and I voted against Trump. The point I'm trying to make is that every country has a dark past. That doesn't mean that the country in question sucks. The average British person today has no connection to the crimes of the Empire, and neither are today's Americans responsible for slavery, Native genocide, Japanese internment, etc. So can we please stop using history as an excuse to advance our own agendas and instead acknowledge that all of humanity has done some terrible things?

The US didn't become worse than some of the worst countries in history, but Trump himself was worse than some of the worst leaders in history. But his badness also included laziness, ignorance, and incompetence; so thankfully the damage he could have done was relatively contained. (not that it wasn't still severe, and very often understated, and still ongoing)

don't pay attention to canadry he's a shameless propagandist with an obvious agenda who once said, in earnestness, that a list that included Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Ulbricht's East Germany, and the Derg's Ethiopia were the "coolest countries ever."

Interesting